Logical Proof that Nothing Exists

I found the following argument on a website devoted to logical paradoxes.*

I have my own thoughts on this, but I wanted to open it up to all of you and ask how you make sense of it?

"The Problem of the Specious Present

Nihilism is the view that nothing exists. There are different kinds of nihilism; one can be a moral nihilist, for instance, holding that morality does not exist, or a religious nihilist, holding that God does not exist. The problem of the specious present supports a universal nihilism, the view that nothing whatsoever exists.

In order for something to exist it must have duration, it must exist for a certain amount of time. To say that something exists for no time at all, that at the very moment that it comes into existence it also passes out of it, is to say that it doesn’t exist at all. Unicorns exist for no time at all; so do square circles. Things that exist for no time at all don’t exist. In order for something to exist it must have duration.

The past and the future do not exist; they are not there, in the world. Perhaps the past once existed, and perhaps its effects can still be seen in the world today, but the past doesn’t exist now; if it exists now, then where is it? And perhaps the future will exist one day, but it doesn’t exist yet; again, if it exists now, then where is it? The past and the future clearly do not exist; the universe consists only of the gap between them, the present.

How large is the gap between the past and the future? What is the duration of the present? A minute? A second? A nano-second?

Clearly the present does not last as long as a minute. A minute consists of different temporal parts. First comes its beginning, then its middle, and then its end. Each of its parts occurs at a different time. If its beginning is present then its middle and end are future. If its middle is present, then its beginning is past and its end is future. If its end is present then its beginning and middle are past. If the present lasted as long as a minute then it would consist of past, present, and future elements, but that would be absurd; the present must be wholly present.

The same, though, could be said if the present were of shorter duration, lasting only a second, or even only a nano-second. In either case, the present would have temporal parts: a beginning, a middle, and an end. If its beginning were present then its middle and end would be future. If its middle were present, then its beginning would be past and its end would be future. If its end were present then its beginning and middle would be past. If the present has any duration at all then it consists of past, present, and future elements, but that, as I said before, would be absurd.

The present, then, has no duration; there is no gap between the past and the future. It has already been seen, though, that to say that something has no duration is to say that it does not exist. The present, then, like the past and the future, does not exist.

If there is neither past, nor present, nor future, though, then what is there? Nothing. Nothing exists at all. Universal nihilism is true."

*http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/specious-present/

[hybrid]

Imo, this simply means that time is not an objective reality.
Someting flows and sensed as time.
Therefore time is a quality or subjective perception.
The perceiver of time is the one that exist.

I think this is a wonderful example of just how easily the mind can think itself down a deep hole.

That said, I think such exercises in conceptual conjuring are very much a two-edged sword. Having proven that nothing exists, all bets are off - it proves only that we are also free to imagine the greatest, highest, lovingest world imaginable.

The question ceases to be 'What is real' and becomes 'What reality should we imagine?'

Created unconsciously, it is a trap - created consciously, it is the greatest human power.

[ThoughtOnFire]

The concept of time presented in the OP is elementary at best. If I did something similar with, say, "God", then it would be as follows: There is no Giant White Bearded Man Sitting On A Throne Of Clouds Up In The Sky. Therefore, there is No God.

[hybrid]

Uhm, i think the logical paradox is well thought thru.
It has similiarity to zeno's paradox of arrow.
Where zeno a greek philosopher claim that a shooting arrow cannot be in motion.

“ If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. ”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[11] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.

For centuries noone has ever invalidate zenos logic because it is true.
It is only lately that this makes sense. With the advent of quantum mechanics, particles turn out to be jumping and motion is discontinous. Then everything makes sense.

With regards to op, it is logical. And it will only make sense if the mind is more fundamenta than objects and it does not exist in time.

[Arcturus]

problem here is that rules were set for the discussion, i.e. that for something to exist it must have duration. the present is beyond time as measurement and so it can not be reduced to numbers.

Originally Posted by necta3

problem here is that rules were set for the discussion, i.e. that for something to exist it must have duration. the present is beyond time as measurement and so it can not be reduced to numbers.

Exactly.

The conclusion drawn from the 'logic' is inevitably directed from the base assumptions that set up the proposition.

If a logician can state the base assumptions with enough authority (or is it stealth?) that the listener buys them, then he knows the listener must inevitably buy the outcome, no matter how unlikely or even ridiculous.

Overall a very enlightening and interesting exercise, in any case.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by necta3

problem here is that rules were set for the discussion, i.e. that for something to exist it must have duration

Can you dispute this. Is the set rule false?
Matter as an existence must occupy space in point in time.
Isnt this so?

the present is beyond time as measurement and so it can not be reduced to numbers.

You made your own definition of the word present.
Present is now. But Buddha said things are in a flux (in constant change).
So how can you capture the now moment when its in the past before you know it?

Originally Posted by Humm

The question ceases to be 'What is real' and becomes 'What reality should we imagine?'

Created unconsciously, it is a trap - created consciously, it is the greatest human power.

I love that.

Indeed, if the conclusion seems absurd, then there must be a fallacy somewhere in the premises. Time, it seems, is only a conceptual tool with no concrete reality. It shows the degree to which we can hypnotize ourselves with language, ideas, and concepts.

On the other hand, as Humm pointed out, you could take it as proof that everything is indeed an illusion, a projection of our own creative power, a very elaborate and beautiful play of smoke.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Winston

I love that.

Indeed, if the conclusion seems absurd, then there must be a fallacy somewhere in the premises. Time, it seems, is only a conceptual tool with no concrete reality. It shows the degree to which we can hypnotize ourselves with language, ideas, and concepts.

On the other hand, as Humm pointed out, you could take it as proof that everything is indeed an illusion, a projection of our own creative power, a very elaborate and beautiful play of smoke.

In my opinion the premises are correct.
The conclusion is wrong